Posts by Dennis Frank
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: These things we must now change, in reply to flabra,
I empathise & will try to respond suitably. Speech matters, indeed, and I agree it is part of behaviour. Intent and motive are usually discernible, but it is human nature to disagree and diagnosis therefore varies. Interpretation is a subjective mental process.
To articulate an objective view, folks usually form an interim verbal agreement, then formalise it via consensus on the written description if necessary. In politics, it is necessary. I led such a process for the Greens, to get the rules for decision-making and constitution adopted, so I'm clear on how to do that stuff successfully.
As regards racism diagnosis, I can report that it was done via dictionary definition originally. Anyone who asserted that one race was superior to others was deemed racist. Supporters of ideologies and governments that promoted the notion were then also deemed racist. I marched against apartheid on that basis in 1970.
Nowadays things have morphed, so we routinely get racist applied as a term of abuse regardless of the definition being inappropriate to the circumstance. Bigotry rules, in consequence. I blame postmodernism for this outcome.
I'm aware that this explanation may not fully answer the question you began with, but I'm not sure I can add anything more helpful...
-
I was responding to the suggestion that a bipartisan consensus in parliament to oppose racism would be a good idea. It probably would, but viability would hinge on the definition used.
I agree that hatred is a bad thing - have felt that way since I was a child. I recall making a conscious decision to reject it when adolescent in the early sixties. I've noticed, however, that leftists who oppose hate speech tend to use it themselves, when criticising rightists who use it. As a centrist, I find both groups contemptible. Fortunately many leftists do not descend to that level!
We have a law against hate speech. However it has never been tested via prosecution, as far as I'm aware, so we don't have case-law to establish precedent yet. I'm also unaware of any consensual definition that could be applied, so I remain a sceptic as regards the practicality of the notion.
-
Hard News: These things we must now change, in reply to Moz,
Political consensus could only ever derive from agreement about which behaviour is racist. There's been an evident trend in recent years to disregard the standard definition of the term in favour of reinventing it. Consequently, a cultural pattern of folks using the term as a form of abuse, prompted by their subjective emotional reactions, has become toxic.
Thus, for instance, two judges in a NSW court recently decided that a prosecution failed because islam is not a race. You'd think even primary school children could figure that out, but whoever brought the prosecution lacked their intellect. Perhaps idiocy is contagious.
-
Hard News: These things we must now change, in reply to Andre,
I just watched Peter Lineham on the AM Show saying the Crusaders would have to change their name, and fast! I suspect he’s right. Resistance will just suggest that the Chch supremacist sub-culture has broad support in the hinterland.
Peter also mentioned that he knew the name was wrong back when he first heard it. I had the same reaction at the time. It’s like glorifying war.
-
Aberrant individuals are a consequence, seems to me. Paranoia about immigration is a consequence too - of excessive immigration produced by govts of both left & right.
Populists understand this as a betrayal of democracy by the political establishment, I suspect, due to the lack of electoral mandate. You could disprove this thesis by citing evidence that some parties have campaigned to increase immigration in some western countries - all I'm saying is that I'm not aware of any such evidence.
Consequently, public opinion became a fertile ground for conspiracy theorising. Forced immigration, imposed as part of the neoliberal prescription by elites such as Bilderbergers & UN. David Parker told us that the guy who gave James Shaw a black eye was yelling about the United Nations. Commentators speculated on the Standard that the UN Migration Pact was his grievance, but just as likely he was following Trump's advice that the UN is using climate change to bring in global governance (Shaw is the minister of cc).
In this global context, focus on hate speech risks becoming a distraction - it looks more like a symptom than a cause. Public policy ought to be solutions-focused, and to solve a problem you have to figure it out. Social problems usually get solved via correct diagnosis. I'm not convinced that the cause and effect relation between hate speech and violence has been established. Failure to prosecute on the basis of our hate-speech law seems evidence that this is so.
-
Hard News: Cannabis reform is a serious…, in reply to Rob Stowell,
I take the point. Somewhat. Glass half-empty situation. With governance in question all over western civilisation, anyone who speaks up on behalf of bureaucracy is such a threatened species that an attitude of compassion kicks in.
Professional competence probably does exist, but likely is only detectable on a chance basis. Group-think probably isn't as dire as within Labour, but still an operational handicap. I've interacted with some public servants who seem to be genuinely motivated to provide public service (they also seem elderly).
If they formed a lobby group entitled Bureaucrats for Legalisation we could start to see them as part of the solution rather than part of the problem. But I imagine you'd be quick to declare that public servants cannot be allowed to take an ethical stance in public, because the law doesn't allow them the same civil rights as other citizens. If so, could be another case of leftists trying to get away with discrimination, and defending the establishment in consequence. Seen that shit since the sixties...
-
Hard News: Cannabis reform is a serious…, in reply to Joe Boden,
I thought the five options seemed an intelligent design. Just one obvious design flaw: three were for legalisation but failed to say so. I only becomes apparent when you read and interpret the text.
Just remember: half the voters have below-average intelligence! Imagine the enormous queues that will develop at polling places, caused by voters scratching their heads trying to figure out where the legalisation option is, so they can tick it.
The kiss formula applies: keep it simple (too many folks are) stupid. Both/and logic could be applied via supplying them with a legalisation option to tick, followed by the three regulation options you describe (in a sub-section).
I also didn't like the psychological signalling involved in the choice to put the status quo first. The status quo is so disreputable, it ought to be last!
Anyway, what would I choose to vote for? One of these two:
• State-owned monopoly with no private profit involved (similar to alcohol in Scandinavia).
• Strongly regulated private businesses; no marketing, limited hours of purchase, R20 (similar to tobacco in New Zealand).
The problem with the state option is that it forces us to trust bureaucrats to get it right. Since when has that ever worked?? If legislation included a clause requiring the bureaucrats to obtain approval from the Drug Foundation for their methodology, that could suffice to produce trust in their competence. The DF would be a compulsory consultancy in both design and implementation phases.
The problem with the private enterprise option is that enterprises compete in the market on the basis of quality differentiation. Okay, they also compete on the basis of false promises, but let's assume regulators will eliminate that! So producers must be able to specify what makes their product better. Consumer choice requires that info to be available. That means advertising, even if only at point of sale...
-
Hard News: Cannabis reform is a serious…, in reply to Simon Armstrong,
I thought it an excellent essay! The focus on addiction psychology points to a dimension of the public debate hitherto made conspicuous by abscence, but here's the reason: "only about 10-20% of habitual users can be classified as addicts."
That depends how you define addiction, of course! Scientists agreed marijuana isn't addictive long ago. However, habit-forming tendencies easily produce dependency, and that can simulate addiction rather well.
Danyl asks "what if addiction is a constant product of technological progress, meaning it is a problem that will continually escalate and get worse, rather than go away?" We've seen oil-addiction produce runaway climate change. Violence-addiction still produces war, and arms-manufacturing. Money-addiction produces gambling and capitalism, reminding us of the traditional aphorism: money is the root of all evil.
If psychologists weren't collectively inept, they would have already persuaded us that addiction psychology is the root of many harmful behaviours, and ought to be designed-for in our public policy.
-
Hard News: Cannabis reform is a serious…, in reply to Craig Young,
-
Hard News: Cannabis reform is a serious…, in reply to Craig Young,
At a glance, you can get the overview here: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/countries/drug-reports/2018/portugal_en
Cannabis 8% "in young adults (15-34 years) in the last year" Also, from a year ago: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it
"Portugal’s remarkable recovery, and the fact that it has held steady through several changes in government – including conservative leaders who would have preferred to return to the US-style war on drugs – could not have happened without an enormous cultural shift, and a change in how the country viewed drugs, addiction – and itself. In many ways, the law was merely a reflection of transformations that were already happening in clinics, in pharmacies and around kitchen tables across the country. The official policy of decriminalisation made it far easier for a broad range of services (health, psychiatry, employment, housing etc) that had been struggling to pool their resources and expertise, to work together more effectively to serve their communities."
"In 1997, after 10 years of running the CAT in Faro, Goulão was invited to help design and lead a national drug strategy. He assembled a team of experts to study potential solutions to Portugal’s drug problem. The resulting recommendations, including the full decriminalisation of drug use, were presented in 1999, approved by the council of ministers in 2000, and a new national plan of action came into effect in 2001."
"Today, Goulão is Portugal’s drug czar. He has been the lodestar throughout eight alternating conservative and progressive administrations; through heated standoffs with lawmakers and lobbyists; through shifts in scientific understanding of addiction and in cultural tolerance for drug use; through austerity cuts, and through a global policy climate that only very recently became slightly less hostile. Goulão is also decriminalisation’s busiest global ambassador. He travels almost non-stop, invited again and again to present the successes of Portugal’s harm-reduction experiment to authorities around the world, from Norway to Brazil, which are dealing with desperate situations in their own countries."